Maybe you all will think I sound racist, but I truly am not. I grew up in an area with a large number of african-americans (for iowa anyway), and had african-american friends. But there are neighborhoods south of where I live, where it just is not safe. I avoid driving through them (especially after dark) and I would never walk through them or ever consider living in them even if I found the home of my dreams there. And, it just so happens that these are the "black neighborhoods". And some of the victims of crime and violence in these neighborhoods are completely random, which makes them all the more scary. A few years back a young boy died cause he was shot by a stray bullet through his window, as he slept at night, even though nobody was out to hurt his family specifically. Who would choose to purchase property in a neighborhood like this?!

Now, where we live is a mostly white neighborhood, which is something my husband insisted on (he is ignorant about other races, having grown up on a farm in an extremely white area, with a racist family), but black families have been moving in. We have a bi-racial family right next door, and a new bi-racial family just moved in a few houses down. There are a couple black families that live on the street behind us. At first my husband was not thrilled about the new neighbors, but he has gotten to know them, and it has opened his eyes that not all blacks can be pigeon-holed. I don't fear that our neighborhood is turning black, I just realize that the neighborhood is only about 10 years old and as time goes on it will become more diversified. And that is a good thing, in my opinion, as long as it continues to be a safe place. We also have a few Indian families, and some Hispanics and Asians. But, like others have said, it is the rednecks that cause the most commotion.

It is impossible to really place all Hispanics under the same ethnic group. While most Mexicans are of indian descent, Puerto Ricans are 25% black, 97% of Argentinians are white (49% of Italian descent), 25% of Colombians are white, 90% of all Cubans are white, and most of the people of the Dominican Republic are black. I really don't see what's the point of calling all the people of Latin America hispanics, when indeed all of them have different ethnic backgrounds and customs. I have seen neighborhoods of wealthy Cubans in West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, and Miami, but most people fail to notice this simply because they look white. There are also rich neighborhoods of rich Uruguays in New Jersey but again they are white and therefore they're not considered as "hispanics". Same with Colombians. Now, Dominicans and P.Ricans in NYC are viewed as blacks, when in reality they're hispanics. As far as literacy goes, I'd encourage everyone to compare the literacy levels of Uruguay, Argentina, and Cuba vs literacy levels of Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador. People should be more unequivocal when referring to ethnic groups. This issue leads to another: what kind of hispanics "depreciate" value? Does ethnicity really matter? Or is it just mere racism and xenophobia that drive down property values? What would you prefer: a family of black Hondurans moving next door, or a family of white Venezuelans? According to science we're all racist.

Perhaps someone can explain to me why it's acceptable to make fun of and stereotype working class southerners but no other group (hilbillies???? )

The same reason Chris Rock is allowed to make fun of poor African-Americans and Carlos Mencia can insult working class Latinos. Intra-racial humor is considered acceptable and outside the jurisdiction of the PC police.

Disrespect for your neighbors, disrespect for authority,(cops,code enforcement,etc.), and a disrepect for the environment all contribute to community decay; crime, lower property values, & commercial flight. What is really exposed when someone comments about their neighbors bringing down the neighborhood is the insular nature of American society and the loss of community cohesion.
The migrants that moved into my neighborhodd fixed their place up and are now working on a place down the road to bring in more of their extended family. Yet, I even here that $#!+ from my white neighbors who coincidentally employ two of the boys for yard maintenance.
Go figure.
By the way, all those "United We Stand" bumper stickers are full of it.
United in fear, with only those we choose.

A HA! you fell into my trap!! Sterotypes and fears are exactly what we are talking about. Well played, you attacked it head on, no pussy-footing.

I'm unabashedly pro-PC. Of course, when I grew up it was called "politeness". It's wholly possible to have a proper debate without belittling any group of people (real or iamgined) though pejorative labels.

As someone who's "experienced" Detroit, would you say that the more "permissive" (or, if you prefer, less repressive) post-1950s policing, with concomitant emergence of a more self-assured criminal fraternity within "minority" communities perpetuated and worsened racial prejudice?

Maybe it's growing up in europe and living in London, but to this day I can't figure why some folks get so het up about people's races. I don't mean the odd stupid comment; but 'falling property values'? Jeez.

As someone who's "experienced" Detroit, would you say that the more "permissive" (or, if you prefer, less repressive) post-1950s policing, with concomitant emergence of a more self-assured criminal fraternity within "minority" communities perpetuated and worsened racial prejudice?

What you talkin' 'bout Luca? I've read this several times, either he was drinking when he typed this or I'm drunk now.

I simply asked whether you believe that rising crime levels in the 1960s and 1970s exacerbated "white flight" from Detroit.

Ahh why didn't you say that?, use english dammit!

In some cases yes, in other cases no. I don't ever recall crime being a major problem where I grew up until the 1980's; but that did not stop whitey from running like his ass was on fire to the suburbs.

These days white flight is not a problem for the City. It is a problem however for many of the suburbs that pushed the separatism in the first place. Once wealthy suburbs that were established as bastions for whites are now showing signs of abandonment. Karma can be a b!tc# sometimes.

Based on data for Michigan as a whole (could not find Detroit-sepcific data), the real explosion in crime is from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. Murder peaks in 19764 and 'violent crime' in the early 1990s after effectively plateauing since the mid-1980s.

The saddest thing is that if you listen to the political (high level) cops and all the bien pensants in the UK right now they're spouting the same rubbish that the establishment was spouting in the US while crime was rocketing.... sad.

Based on data for Michigan as a whole (could not find Detroit-sepcific data), the real explosion in crime is from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. Murder peaks in 19764 and 'violent crime' in the early 1990s after effectively plateauing since the mid-1980s.

The saddest thing is that if you listen to the political (high level) cops and all the bien pensants in the UK right now they're spouting the same rubbish that the establishment was spouting in the US while crime was rocketing.... sad.

On the other hand, all the "tough on crime" policies, including mandatory minimum sentences, and the whole "War on Drugs" thing is now coming around to bite the US on it's butt. Unless you believe that drug dealers and minor thiefs should be executed or put away for life sentences, they are eventually released. Crime is beginning to skyrocket again in many central U.S. cities. So...does the vaunted "tough on crime" work all that well?

In some cases yes, in other cases no. I don't ever recall crime being a major problem where I grew up until the 1980's; but that did not stop whitey from running like his ass was on fire to the suburbs.

race riot? we have not had one of those since the 1940's. The 1968 Riot was never about race. It was about the police. And most of the outcomes of the riot (killing, looting stealing from black merchants) were crimes.

I simply asked whether you believe that rising crime levels in the 1960s and 1970s exacerbated "white flight" from Detroit.

I'm someone else who has "experienced" Detroit, having been born there and moved away in the '80s; I frequently go back to visit. To me, Detroit's white flight begins and ends with the 1973 mayoral election, Coleman Young vs. John Nichols.

In 1973, Detroit was maybe 55-45 in its white-black racial makeup. Many whites had already moved out after the 1967 riots. Coleman Young was a black union organizer who freely preached that it was "time" for blacks to assume political control of the city (which to many whites may have sounded like a time for retribution). John Nichols was the city police commissioner who vowed for law and order in the streets of Detroit (which to many blacks may have sounded like the emergence of repressive rule).

Young won a very narrow victory in 1973, and the pace of white flight greatly accelerated after his win.

Coincidentally, Philadelphia had a very similar racial makeup in the early 1970s, and elected police commissioner Frank Rizzo mayor in 1972 (although I don't know if he was running against a black candidate then). Detroit and Philly were also of similar size at the time. It's possible his election may have slowed white flight in Philly, which still has a far greater white presence in the city than Detroit does.

I don't know whether it is worth posting on this thread after it's veered off so far from track, but here goes. To the original poster:

Yes, there is a correlation between a black majority and lower housing prices in an area. There are a few majority black neighborhoods where this is not the case, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

There are three possible explanations as to why black neighborhoods have lower property values than comparable white neighborhoods:

1) institutionalized racism. I once heard a realtor quote that once a neighborhood reaches a certain percentage black population (around 30-40%), most whites lose interest in buying houses in that neighborhood. This was said a decade ago, so maybe things are different now, but nonetheless it can explain why few neighborhoods remain mixed for a long time without tipping into a clear black majority. How much of institutionalized racism is based on sheer racism or other correlating factors remains to be seen, but #1 is probably in part dependent on #2 and #3.

2) Schools. Schools in black communities have lower test scores and fewer amenities than those in white communities. The amenities bit may be related to institutionalized racism, but fact remains that test scores are lower in schools where black students are the majority. Take the Baltimore suburbs where African Americans do constitute a majority of the residents in certain parts versus a clear white majority in other parts. The top scoring schools are overwhelmingly white and Asian. The lowest scoring suburban schools have a large black presence. Also, the schools with the highest reported levels of violence tend to be the ones in the black parts of the county. Since many people buy houses based on the quality of the school districts, it isn't surprising that white homeowners will avoid buying into black neighborhoods because of the perceived stigma of lower quality schools.

3) Amenities. Black suburbs and neighborhoods tend to have far fewer amenities compared to white suburbs and neighborhoods. Amenities run the gamut from parks and playgrounds to thriving commerical corridors. Using Baltimore as an example, the major black suburbs are concentrated along the Liberty Road/Woodlawn corridor on the west/northwest side of the city. Despite a relatively high average income, the quality of stores, restaurants, and public facilities that serve this area is far less than what one can find along the I-83/York Road corridor in the north of the city, where most of the affluent white suburbs are concentrated.

The Washington Post not too long ago ran an article examining a handful of white families that had chose to buy into upscale housing subdivisions in Prince George's County, a majority black county outside Washington, DC. The article discussed the family's willingness to live in a majority black neighborhood and found that the whites made the decision in part based on economic factors: despite buying into upscale subdivisions with houses in the high six figures, those same houses were still only about half to two thirds what the comparable subdivisions were going for in neighboring Montgomery County or other majority white communities. Furthermore, the white families, while comfortable with living in a majority black community, were reluctant to send their children to the local schools and were exploring private/catholic options largely because of the perceived lower quality of the education offered in the public schools.

This isn't an attempt to explain or justify anything, but I hope that it may go some ways in explaining why many are reluctant in buying in largely black communities.

I agree with Penn Planner since I both work in the one area you spoke of (Woodlawn) and live in another, Ellicott City.

The point is a simple one, since a house is an investment, you want to make as wise a choice as possible. Simply put, 500K in a white area is more likely to have a better ROI and will be a more stable market than the same money/house in an area that is racially mixed. As much as people may disagree about the reasoning, and they may wish it wasn't like this, it is the case. Now, some people may decide to put the dollars and sense aside and chose to live in mixed neighborhoods based on principle (for the same reason that some Christian invest in only companies that are more in line with thier beliefs) you may do so to the detriment of you rate of appreciation and ability for resale. This is not to say that it is wrong to do that, I am all for principled living, but know that if the housing market softens quite a bit, you could be forced to keep your home on the market for longer than you would have had to otherwise and you might be leaving money on the table.

In an ideal world, this would not be a discussion we would have to have, but it isn't. The reality is that people have jobs to go to, bills to pay, day care to afford and schools to worry about, and they just don't care to fight this battle if they don't have to. People like being around others with whom they can identify with, whether it is based on hobbies, education, income and yes, RACE. For me, this is my pecking order, but for others, they might prefer and feel more comfortable around people of like ethnicity, and I don't think that is wrong. To use Woodlawn as an example, neighboring it is a huge Asian population, complete with churches, stores, restaurants...the whole shabang. Is that wrong? Is it wrong that they would prefer to congregate, live work and play in the same area? No, it isn't, just as it isn't wrong for whites, blacks, hispanics, jews, greeks, italians etc...to do the same. It would be much easier if people could accept the truths and view the world as it is, and then try to impact it rather than viewing it as they want it to be, and then concocting solutions based on their false view.

Anyway, I think I have said enough.

PP
"The questions is not whether the glass is half full or half empty, but rather how to fill it up"

Excellent post Penn Planner; your second observation is not just true of mostly black school districts.

Originally posted by PennPlanner

2) Schools. Schools in black communities have lower test scores and fewer amenities than those in white communities. The amenities bit may be related to institutionalized racism, but fact remains that test scores are lower in schools where black students are the majority. Take the Baltimore suburbs where African Americans do constitute a majority of the residents in certain parts versus a clear white majority in other parts. The top scoring schools are overwhelmingly white and Asian. The lowest scoring suburban schools have a large black presence. Also, the schools with the highest reported levels of violence tend to be the ones in the black parts of the county. Since many people buy houses based on the quality of the school districts, it isn't surprising that white homeowners will avoid buying into black neighborhoods because of the perceived stigma of lower quality schools.

Rural districts suffer from much of the same problems in many parts of the United States, as they too are quite underfunded. I think that this may be an 'effect' instead of a 'cause', you elude to this as well. We still have a lot of inequities in how schools are funded, and our willingness to tax ourselves to pay the true cost of what we need.

You will find that many people locate into districts with higher taxes dedicate specifically to the school district because that is what is important to them. People vote with their feet, that is part of the reason why some areas are losing the young (the other is job availablity).

Maybe you all will think I sound racist, but I truly am not. I grew up in an area with a large number of african-americans (for iowa anyway), and had african-american friends. But there are neighborhoods south of where I live, where it just is not safe. I avoid driving through them (especially after dark) and I would never walk through them or ever consider living in them even if I found the home of my dreams there. And, it just so happens that these are the "black neighborhoods". And some of the victims of crime and violence in these neighborhoods are completely random, which makes them all the more scary. A few years back a young boy died cause he was shot by a stray bullet through his window, as he slept at night, even though nobody was out to hurt his family specifically. Who would choose to purchase property in a neighborhood like this?!

Now, where we live is a mostly white neighborhood, which is something my husband insisted on (he is ignorant about other races, having grown up on a farm in an extremely white area, with a racist family), but black families have been moving in. We have a bi-racial family right next door, and a new bi-racial family just moved in a few houses down. There are a couple black families that live on the street behind us. At first my husband was not thrilled about the new neighbors, but he has gotten to know them, and it has opened his eyes that not all blacks can be pigeon-holed. I don't fear that our neighborhood is turning black, I just realize that the neighborhood is only about 10 years old and as time goes on it will become more diversified. And that is a good thing, in my opinion, as long as it continues to be a safe place. We also have a few Indian families, and some Hispanics and Asians. But, like others have said, it is the rednecks that cause the most commotion.

Simply put, 500K in a white area is more likely to have a better ROI and will be a more stable market than the same money/house in an area that is racially mixed.

The best ROI would come from investing in a neighborhood which is transitioning and gentrifying. A "stable" white area can always fall into decline regardless of its past. The racial composition has less to do with it than tax base, access to jobs, crime rate, school quality and political stability.

Originally posted by phpeter

No, it isn't, just as it isn't wrong for whites, blacks, hispanics, jews, greeks, italians etc...to do the same.

Do you really believe that in 2006 blacks have the same housing choices available to them as Jews, Greeks, and Italians?